Canon lenses vs 3rd parties...

[canon23]

Hey Photo Folks,

I'm consider new to the photo community...well, at least most recently with intense regained interest. I bought a Rebel 4 yrs ago and used it just for lesiure. Recently, I just bought the 5D Mark II and got it w/the kit lens (24-105). I also have the 50mm 1.8, but is looking to increase my lenses. Should I buy mainly Canon L lenses or consider 3rd parties, such as Sigma and Tamron, etc.? Your inputs are much appreciated. Thanks.

 

[elflord]

Hey Photo Folks,

I'm consider new to the photo community...well, at least most recently with intense regained interest. I bought a Rebel 4 yrs ago and used it just for lesiure. Recently, I just bought the 5D Mark II and got it w/the kit lens (24-105). I also have the 50mm 1.8, but is looking to increase my lenses. Should I buy mainly Canon L lenses or consider 3rd parties, such as Sigma and Tamron, etc.? Your inputs are much appreciated. Thanks.

Always consider all options -- if you're shopping for a particular type of lens (for example, a normal length fast prime), look at all the offerings, weigh all the factors I own the Sigma 85mm f/1.4mm. It's a nice lens that occupies a fairly wide gap between the Canon 85mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.2. All my other lenses are Canon (other fast primes). If I wanted a cheap fast zoom or a cheap wide angle, I'd also consider a third party lens.

As you have a high end camera, you'll probably want mid to high end glass which means you'll probably own mostly Canon, but there are some decent mid to high end third party lenses that are worth considering (the Sigma 50 and 85, anything made by Zeiss, budget manual focus lenses from Samyang)

 

[pwp]

Any FF Canon will punish anything less than high quality glass. Your 24-105 f/4is is class glass, and uncommonly versatile.

If you like your 50mm and use it a lot, and want to upgrade from your current f/1.8 lens there is plenty of choice here.

Canon's 50mm f/1.4 is now fairly ancient, but don't let that put you off. It's a very respectable lens, rock solid build, low price, surprisingly compact and delivers excellent quality even one click down from wide open at f/1.8. Click to f/2.8 and most copies are stellar. For similar money there is the widely liked Sigma 50 f/1.4. It's bulky & heavy but delivers excellent IQ. Got deep pockets? The L 50 f/1.2 has a lot of satisfied users.

The non-L EF wides frequently disappoint, but you could occasionally get lucky. If your budget is strong, a lens that few photographers like to go without is an L 70-200 f/2.8isII or the more compact, cheaper L 70-200 f/4isII. Both lenses are brilliant quality and if you did a poll asking about photographers most used lenses I'd bet you'd see the 70-200 top the poll by a clear margin.

Paul Wright

 

[iso79]

Invest in L lenses and never look back. Don't waste your money on 3rd party lenses.

 

[Marsu42]

Invest in L lenses and never look back. Don't waste your money on 3rd party lenses.

Now if you hadn't given this as an advice but as a statement of your personal preference, there would be nothing to discuss about. But as it stands it's just the type of very bad advice that is frequently found in this forum and any shop would give you if they would want to give as much money out of you as possible. For aps-c (and not the op's mk2) its even more complicated, because part of the expensive glass ef lenses is not even used for this sensor type, thus it's even more strange to recommend L lenses for everything

* to the op: You can pretty much decide for yourself since you've good one crappy lens (50/1.8) and a good one (24-105L). If you can live with the 50mm Canon one, you'll never find anything wrong about decent 3rd party lenses. But there are excellent 3rd party lenses out there, For crop Sigma or Tokina ultrawides, the Sigma 50/1.4 is better than the legacy Canon one, and in the tele range some Sigma 2.8 lenses outperform cheaper Canon ones hands down. Even in the af/usm/is departement, the 3rd party manufacturers seem to have caught up. So you won't get around comparing reviews and prices to make a decision, or of course if weight or budget is no matter get something like the 24-70ii and the 300 and up 2.8 Canon tele primes.

* personally, I've always bought Canon lenses because of the higher resale value if I would ever want to switch brands completely. As for the other general differences:

a) One constant annoyance about 3rd party lenses is quality control, so be sure to test a new lens and get it replaced if it shows sharpness falloffs or unbalanced CAs.

b) you might need more af micro adjustment on 3rd party lenses, but your mk2 has got this feature.

c) 3rd party manufactures allow for longer warranty than the very short Canon 1y.

d) 3rd party lenses might have issues with upcoming bodies (i.e. not your mk2) because on the one hand side the protocols are only reverse engineered by some and on the other hand side Canon seems to make sure that there are problems.

e) Canon only delivers in-camera correction profiles for their own lenses, but you don't need these if you shoot raw and then apply a profile in dxo or lr.

f) Canon L lenses have an annoying red ring and even more "here comes the money" white color which might give you a short ego boost and device the crowd in front of you, but later on imho are rather embarrassing (I color-taped my big white lens to get around this).

 

[iso79]

Invest in L lenses and never look back. Don't waste your money on 3rd party lenses.

Now if you hadn't given this as an advice but as a statement of your personal preference, there would be nothing to discuss about. But as it stands it's just the type of very bad advice that is frequently found in this forum and any shop would give you if they would want to give as much money out of you as possible. For aps-c (and not the op's mk2) its even more complicated, because part of the expensive glass ef lenses is not even used for this sensor type, thus it's even more strange to recommend L lenses for everything

It's not bad advice. It's from personal experience. I've wasted so much money on Tamron and Sigma lenses because I wanted to save a few bucks. And every time a disappointment. That money I could have used for L lenses. You only need a few. Pays for itself in the end.

 

[Marsu42]

I've wasted so much money on Tamron and Sigma lenses because I wanted to save a few bucks. And every time a disappointment. That money I could have used for L lenses. You only need a few. Pays for itself in the end.

I understand the frustration, but in this case it would be helpful to post exactly what 3rd party lenses disappointed you and why - because as I wrote above there seem to be top Tokina or Sigma lenses out there, so labeling them all inferior does make bad advice since it's much too general.

 

[iaind]

Buy the best you can afford. Canon lenses are futureproof. Third party lenses are reverse engineered.
Some early Sigma lenses will only work on film cameras unless they have been re-chipped.
Canon L glass holds its value.
A quality lens with outperform lesser variants.

 

[Wideopen]

Invest in some nice L glass. Bodies and 3rd party lens values depreciate rather quickly while L glass retains most of its value as well as increase in value in some cases.

 

[RunAndGun]

f) Canon L lenses have an annoying red ring and even more "here comes the money" white color which might give you a short ego boost and device the crowd in front of you, but later on imho are rather embarrassing (I color-taped my big white lens to get around this).

I'm the type of person that likes black, it's lower profile and fits my "style", but the white(or really off-white) color of the longer L lenses does serve a purpose, besides marketing/recognition. It helps keep the lens cooler if you're out in the sun, you don't want important things like some of the elements to move around because of thermal expansion. In fact, Nikon is offering (at least some) lenses in white, as well.

And there are nice non-L lenses, as well. Two of my sharpest lenses are non-L, my 100mm f/2.8 macro and 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. But I believe everything else I have is L, except my Lensbabies.

 

[drjlo]

As much as I love Canon L lenses and own a bunch, they ARE overpriced. They were already overpriced, then Canon just decided to outdo the already high prices with their new lens lineup, e.g. 24-70 MkII for $2300.. really?

While one must approach 3rd party lenses with caution, with enough investigation, one can achieve a 3rd party lens collection by choosing the good ones. For example, the Sigma 70mm Macro lens is a fantastic lens, sharper than even my Canon 100L and far cheaper.

I am hoping the new Tamron 24-70 IS hits one out of the park as well, to give photographers a much less expensive option to Canon's 24-70 II.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

As much as I love Canon L lenses and own a bunch, they ARE overpriced. They were already overpriced, then Canon just decided to outdo the already high prices with their new lens lineup, e.g. 24-70 MkII for $2300.. really?

2nd that.

I'v considered upgrading my EF 15mm f/2.8 to EF 8-15mm f/4, and decided to buy a Sigma 8mm f/3.5. A major reason was price - not only new L glass expensive, but as the lens is available only from the local official distributor, which charges $250 more than the U.S. price (before taxes).

As I often shoot in low light, I also wanted to keep the 15mm f/2.8 for the extra stop.


[Yes, I've read how the new lenses cost the same in Yens after taking inflation into account. I'll care about that the day my salary is paid in inflation-corrected-Yens.]

 

[Marsu42]

but the white(or really off-white) color of the longer L lenses does serve a purpose, besides marketing/recognition

I can see this is true for shooting with a 600L, but for your general 70-200/4 and 70-300L there is so little white I doubt it makes a difference, esp. seeing that other L primes and mid-range zooms are big and black. But of course I didn't test this myself, so I might be completely wrong.

 

[Loswr]

but the white(or really off-white) color of the longer L lenses does serve a purpose, besides marketing/recognition. It helps keep the lens cooler if you're out in the sun, you don't want important things like some of the elements to move around because of thermal expansion.

I can see this is true for shooting with a 600L, but for your general 70-200/4 and 70-300L there is so little white I doubt it makes a difference, esp. seeing that other L primes and mid-range zooms are big and black. But of course I didn't test this myself, so I might be completely wrong.

Ostensibly, the reason Canon paints the barrels white (or gray/beige, depending on your mental WB setting) is thermal protection, specifically for the fluorite lens elements which are more sensetive to heat than glass. Most of the white lenses (including the 70-200/4 lenses) have fluotite in them, but for lenses without fluorite elements (e.g. the 70-300 L) it's pure marketing.

 

[smirkypants]

Ostensibly, the reason Canon paints the barrels white (or gray/beige, depending on your mental WB setting) is thermal protection, specifically for the fluorite lens elements which are more sensetive to heat than glass. Most of the white lenses (including the 70-200/4 lenses) have fluotite in them, but for lenses without fluorite elements (e.g. the 70-300 L) it's pure marketing.

The 400mm f4 DO, which is also white, also contains one fluorite element.

Interesting stuff here about early Canon fluorite lenses:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/earlyfdlenses/300mmfd.htm

 

[Aditya]

I found myself in a similar situation a while back--I started off with a Rebel XT and ended slowly upgrading to a 7D and 5D MKII. Although much depends on your focal range needs I second the opinions here that L lenses are the best investment for both lens & image quality. Your 24-105 is a really great lens and you may be disappointed with the results from lesser quality glass.

Most of the time I shoot with an 85mm 1.8 and the 135 2L (both reasonably priced). Other good L-series values are the 17-40 and the 70-200 f4, the non-IS version being a affordable complement to your 24-105.

You should check out the Fred Miranda lens reviews page too for more feedback.

Good luck!

Hey Photo Folks,

I'm consider new to the photo community...well, at least most recently with intense regained interest. I bought a Rebel 4 yrs ago and used it just for lesiure. Recently, I just bought the 5D Mark II and got it w/the kit lens (24-105). I also have the 50mm 1.8, but is looking to increase my lenses. Should I buy mainly Canon L lenses or consider 3rd parties, such as Sigma and Tamron, etc.? Your inputs are much appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Marsu42]

Most of the white lenses (including the 70-200/4 lenses) have fluotite in them, but for lenses without fluorite elements (e.g. the 70-300 L) it's pure marketing.

Thanks for the explanation! I'm reading that fluorite elements help color rendition - does that make a big difference? I'm asking because I've got the fluorite-less 70-300L and it does take color pictures, too...

PS: Is there a technical reason for painting a red ring on lenses, too ?

 

[Loswr]

I'm reading that fluorite elements help color rendition - does that make a big difference?

Fluorite has better refractive properties than glass, meaning it reduces chromatic aberration. If you compare Canon lenses with fluorite elements to their Nikon counterparts, you'll find that most of the Nikon lenses have an extra ED element compared to the Canon lenses - so, the fluorite element is essentially doing the job of two ED elements in reducing CA.

 

[Marsu42]

so, the fluorite element is essentially doing the job of two ED elements in reducing CA.

... doesn't sound like a big deal nowadays - first off, on my 70-300L I'm getting hardly any CAs (no wonder using f4-f5.6) and in addition to that, if there were some I'd remove them with one click in LR4. Am I missing something?

 

[Loswr]

... doesn't sound like a big deal nowadays - first off, on my 70-300L I'm getting hardly any CAs (no wonder using f4-f5.6) and in addition to that, if there were some I'd remove them with one click in LR4. Am I missing something?

Not really, except that as a 'slow' lens the 70-300 L would have less CA anyway, compared to an f/2.8 lens. But by that logic, everything can be fixed in post. Why have good metering, just adjust exposure. Why have a fast lens, just add OOF blur later. Ok, I exaggerate. But, that one click in LR4 isn't magic - there are consequences to fixing things in post (in this case, loss of sharpness, or increase in noise if the tool compensates for the reduced sharpness).